Dear Editor,
In this 50th year of political independence the quest for unity ‒ which is seen in some quarters as being possible when the two major races (African and Indian) share political space ‒ may be possible between the races, but not the nation, if the present posturing is anything to go by. This is said against the backdrop that this nation was birthed out of six races/peoples.
Unity, which speaks of togetherness around common issues cannot be achieved when some are seen as more equal than others. In this desire to hog the nation’s pie as against putting laws in place to govern in the interest of all, the other races are seen as inconsequential or become casualties.
It is a misconception to think that when Africans and Indians control the political pie conflicts and animosity will be eliminated between the two. For within the two races there are conflicts and animosity based on other diverse issues such as class, religion, where one lives, colour, vocation/jobs, educational background, and so forth.
It is not by accident that the United Nations, which was formed after World War II out of the intent to maintain world peace, did so on the philosophy that nations and peoples are capable of working together based on universal principles of equality, respect and dignity for all.
As conversations continue on what is being termed unity and national unity, this nation needs to be mindful of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article I, which expressly states, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” Outlined in the Preamble of the Guyana Constitution, Guyanese are called on to “Celebrate our cultural and racial diversity and strengthen our unity by eliminating any and every form of discrimination.”
As a trade unionist what I see existing is discrimination primarily on the grounds of class and race. Under the PPP government sugar unions were assured through actions that their members’ fundamental freedom and right to a trade union of choice and collective bargaining were respected. The then opposition respected that position. In the case of bauxite workers and public servants, predominately Africans, their fundamental right and freedom in this specific instance were totally disregarded. The then opposition condemned these violations and transgressions by the government.
Today, with a new government, customs and practices that existed in the sugar industry have been thrown through the window. For instance, the Annual Production Incentive (API) which is normally negotiated before the end of the year is still to be finalized for 2015. For the public servants and bauxite workers the rule of law is still to be upheld which would ensure their unions’ right to collective bargaining.
Clearly, the discussions on unity, national unity and racial unity remain centred around the events of the 1950s. The struggle in the 1950s was working-class driven, mass based in nature, with the have-nots challenging the privileged and domination by the colonial authority. Forbes Burnham and Cheddi Jagan, while not sharing the same political platform, expounded the same message on behalf of the working class. Further, both men attracted and retained persons of diverse racial groups in the leadership and membership even though the majority of their base came from one or the other of the major racial groups.
Since the 1950s the world has seen the emergence of several international and regional organisations and agreements whose grounding principles are based on respecting rights and freedoms. Guyana is a member of most of these organisations. This country has since had its own constitution which has indicated reform, inclusive of Article 13 (inclusionary democracy) and Title I ‘Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Individual.’
This nation’s failure to date to ensure lasting unity reflects an absence of respect for existing instruments; an absence of will and commitment to put laws in place to safeguard existing rights and freedoms; the non-adherence to universal principles and practices; the absence of passing and enforcing laws which would hold public officials accountable; and disinterest in respecting Article 13 when in the driving seat.
With respect to the talk on constitutional reform, it should be said that the issue of good governance is not premised merely on reform, but more importantly on respecting what currently exists. The affairs of the state have been managed on gut feelings for too long. It is time there was respect for instruments that guide conduct in public office and the public sphere. In the meantime all that is being done is idle chat and deceiving the masses. If officials are not respecting the present laws, there is no assurance that when these are changed, we, the people, will see any difference.
Yours faithfully,
Lincoln Lewis
